Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-06-23 - Council Agenda Packet - Part 1Agenda Corcoran City Council June 23, 2011 - 7:00 PM 1. Call to Order 1 Roll Call 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Agenda Approval 4. Open Forum 5. Presentations -None 6. Planning Business 1 Landform a. Final Approval of 2030 Comprehensive Plan* b. Blocks N Rocks Site Plan and CUP for Outside Storage at 20010 75th Ave (26- 119 -23 -14 -0024) (City file 10- 012)* c. Patnode CUP for Living Quarters Accessory to Ag Use at 23240 CR 30 (City file 11 -004)* d. Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Zoning Map Update* 7. Engineering 1 Wenck a. Dust Control Program- Discussion and History* 8. Public Hearing -None 9. Consent Agenda a. Draft Minutes of 05/26/11 Council Meeting* b. Draft Minutes of 06/09/11 Council Meeting* c. Resolution 2011 -29 Requesting Tax Forfeited Property* d. Resolution 2011 -28 Approving Hennepin County Sheriff Foundation Temporary Gambling Permit* e. Equipment Sharing Agreement* 10. Staff Reports /Memos /Commissions /Correspondence a. Planning Project Update* b. MnSpect Payment Processing* c. Kuehn Correspondence* 11. Unfinished Business a. Speed Limit for rural residential area / Stieg Road* b. Public Works Facility Update* c. Sewer and Water Project Update* 12. New Business 13. Claims as Presented a. Escrow Claims (Fund #500) b. Building Inspections Claims c. All Other Claims As Presented 14. Unscheduled Items 15. Closed Meeting — None Scheduled 16. Review of Upcoming Council Meeting Agenda 17. Adjournment *Includes Materials - Materials relating to these agenda items can be found in the House Agenda Packet by Door. Administrator's Agenda Memo June 23, 2011 To: Mayor and City Council From: Dan Donahue, City Administrator Regarding: Administrator Notes to Council Meeting Agenda 4) Open Forum. Chad Robran will ask the council about designating Corcoran Country Daze as a Community Festival. I believe the principal purpose is to allow the serving of alcoholic beverages by one of our liquor license holders, the Stanchion Bar. State Law under 340.404 does allow cities to so designate a current liquor license holder to serve off premises. The licenses holder must demonstrate that it has liability insurance as prescribed by section 340A.409 to cover the event. 5) Presentations. None 6) Planning and Zoning a) Final Approval of 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The bound document will be delivered to you on Monday or Tuesday of next week. The staff and I are reading to make sure all of the references, page numbers, figures, and maps are in the correct place and all is as the council has previously approved. So far, we have found no problems. b) Blocks N Rocks - Planning Case 10 -012. See report c) Patnode- Planning Case 11 -004. See report d) Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Zoning Map. If the council approved the Final 2030 Comp Plan, then you can consider all of the zoning and subdivision amendments. The first order of business is the Zoning Ordinance and the Zoning Map. Everything before you at this meeting is consistent with the 2030 Comp Plan. You should also be aware that there are several property owners interested in specific provisions in the Zoning Ordinance that are waiting for your approval so they can proceed with their projects. I am told that they will be attending this meeting. Also, be aware that your consideration of the Zoning Ordinance was announced at the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission on June 2nd. I was asked by members of the council if these items could be considered at a later date. Since the matter was announced that it would be on your agenda at this meeting, I am reluctant to arbitrarily change the dates. The council however can lay the matter over to another meeting if they so wish. 7) Engineering a) Dust Control- Program History. See report by City Engineer VanderTop. The council should consider the recommendations by the engineer at the end of the report. I suggest that at a later date we might want to undertake a budget impact analysis if the cost of road improvements is undertaken by the General Fund as apposed to Special Assessments. 8) Public Hearing. None Page 1 Administrator's Agenda Memo June 23, 2011 9) Consent Agenda a) Council Draft Minutes of 05/26/11. The approval of these minutes was laid over to this meeting due to questions about the closed meeting. Staff is recommending that the documents presented at this council meeting are public and are now in the public record of this meeting. b) Council Draft Minutes of 06/09/11 c) Resolution 2011 -29, Tax Forfeited Property. At the last council meeting, I mentioned that the council needed to amend the original resolution 2011 -012 that requests conveyance of a tax forfeited property to the city for a public purpose. I said that the county was requesting the city to state the public purpose that is allowed in state law. This now has been included in the new resolution. Also, the city is required to give the county a $250 fee (new this year) for the filing. d) Resolution 2011 -28, Approving Hennepin County Sheriff Request for Temporary Gambling Permit. See letter from the Sheriff's Foundation. They are requesting to hold a raffle in conjunction with their golf tournament to be held in August at Pheasant Acres Golf Course. Staff recommends approval. e) Equipment Sharing Agreement. The council looked at this agreement at the last council meeting and agreed in principle. This is the final document and there are no substantive changes to the previous agreement. Staff recommends approval. 10)Staff Reports. a) Planning Project Update. See report b) MNSpect Contract, Payment Processing. See report from staff about the MNSpect billing. The tracking of the permits, there turnaround and the billing is an involved process; and one that is difficult to keep reconciled. Much of this manual, time consuming process would be eliminated with permit software. The council had a question at the May 26th council meeting about the MNSpect billing and permit process. Ms. Wagner who handles the recording and tracking of permits has tried to explain the process (and it is difficult to really explain). When we go out for a new contract for a building official, we are going to ask that the billing and permit process be specified up front and meet our requirements. The council might want to weigh in on what you want to see in this process. 11)Unfinished Business. a) Speed Limit For Rural Residential Area /Stieg Road b) Public Works Facility Update. I believe council members Asleson and Cossette will have information to present on the property search project they have been working on. c) Sewer & Water Update. Staff has been working on an update to the project schedule. The engineers and I would like to review that plan with you. In your packet is the proposed schedule. Some important dates and decisions are looming in order to keep on schedule and get this project under construction in the spring of 2012. 12)New Business Page 2 Administrator's Agenda Memo June 23, 2011 13)Claims. 14)Unscheduled and Other Items 15) Closed Council Meeting. None Scheduled 16) Upcoming Council Meetings. On July 14th, I would like to start discussion on the 2012 Budget and other financial matters for the coming year including the current CIP and the 2012/13 CIP Council Calendar Planning Commission Parks & Trails Commission Other 515111 612111 717111 814111 911111 1016111 Guenthner Cossette Gmach Asleson Milbrandt Guenthner 5117111 6128111 7119111 8116111 9120111 10118111 Date Change Cossette Gmach Asleson Milbrandt Guenthner Cossette Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Page 3 Wenck Wenck Associates, Inc. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center P.O. Box 249 Maple Plain, MN 55359 -0249 (763) 479 -4200 Fax (763) 479 -4242 E -mail: wenckmp @wenck.com ROAD STABILIZATION /DUST CONTROL PROGRAM HISTORY TO: Dan Donahue, City Administrator FROM: Vince Vander Top, P.E. DATE: June 16, 2011 SUBJECT: Road Stabilization/Dust Control Program History The City Council conducted the annual "Dust Control" Assessment Hearing on April 28, 2011. This hearing and process has become an annual event as part of Corcoran's road maintenance strategies. Several questions were raised during the meeting relating to the origins, history, and intent of the program. The purpose of this memo is to update the Council in regard to the history of the program and past decisions made leading to our current status. Initial reasons for assessment program The program was initiated in 2000 for the following reasons: • Several residents /property owners were already doing dust control applications along their property. The city facilitated this work through a volunteer program and property owners typically received 300 L.F. of road treatment for a fixed cost. Certain neighborhoods desired to treat their entire cul -de- sac /road although not every resident in the neighborhood agreed to participate. As a result, a majority of neighbors would finance dust control for the entire neighborhood. This was not perceived as fair and they requested that they entire neighborhood be assessed equally to ensure fairness. The Council agreed to this approach in neighborhoods where a significant majority requested the treatment. Several collector roads had gaps between areas treated via the volunteer method. Some of the gaps between areas treated by the volunteer approach were small which created poor driving conditions (washboard) and difficulties for road maintenance. The grader would need to be dispatched to grade small stretches; untreated gravel would be mixed with treated areas, etc. It was therefore desirable to treat the entire collector road (including the gaps) to improve conditions and make the road more manageable. • The gravel budget, although significant, was not adequate to keep the required gravel base on several roads since average gravel depth was decreasing over time. Road stabilization treatments were considered an option to reduce gravel loss. This perception was anecdotal and expected gravel saving could not be quantified. • The City did not have sufficient capacity in the general fund to finance a dust control program. Also, many residents were already paying via the volunteer program. An assessment program was considered a viable approach to continue payment from benefitting parties. Based on my recollection, these are the primary reasons for initiating an assessment program. 2001: The first assessment program Three categories of assessments were established: • Neighborhood Roads • Low Density Collector Roads • High Density Collector Roads The basis for these categories is explained further in the text below. The assessment roll and amounts were established with the following considerations: The City Attorney reviewed Chapter 429 and considered a road stabilization assessment proper and defendable. The city has never had a property owner appeal a road stabilization assessment. • Only properties with residences were assessed. The Council considered road stabilization beneficial for residents. The dust control benefit to crops was also discussed but it was decided to not assess farmland and vacant parcels. Neighborhood Roads: Neighborhoods were assessed 100% of the costs to treat their cul -de- sac /street. This was discussed and considered fair and equitable to the residents of the neighborhood. The cost to each property owner was less than the previous cost of the voluntary program. Collector Roads: Significant discussion occurred relating to the collector roads since collector roads are used by residents living along the road, residents from other parts of Corcoran, and vehicles travelling through Corcoran. These patterns were acknowledged in determining that it was not necessarily fair and equitable to have residents along the collector road pay for treatment of the entire road. o Low Density: It was determined that residences on low density collector roads would not be assessed any amount higher than the current voluntary program rate. • Residences along low density collector roads received an assessment similar to the voluntary rate in the previous year. • Because the costs to complete low density collector roads exceeded the revenues collected via assessments, the City participated by covering the additional costs via the general budget. The City participation was on the order of $18K to $20K. ■ Certain neighborhoods receive their only access via a gravel collector road (e.g. Foxline /Treeline, et. al.). It was determined that these neighborhood streets /cul -de -sacs would also be treated and that the residents of these neighborhoods would be assessed as residences along the collector road. With that assumption their assessment would not exceed an amount consistent with the voluntary program. o High Density: Two sections of collector roads (Becthold — Oakdale to CR 117 and Trail Haven — CR 30 to Oakdale) have several residences along the collector road and in neighborhoods accessing these sections of collector road. The cost per residence to treat these neighborhood roads and portions of collector roads was less than cost per residence via the voluntary program. It was determined that it was fair and equitable for residences in these situations to pay 100% of the cost for their neighborhood and portion of collector road. The City did not participate in the cost to complete these areas. o Paved Neighborhood Roads accessing gravel Collector Roads: Certain neighborhoods have paved streets but their only access is via a gravel collector road. These situations were classified as a subset to Low Density and High Density Collector Roads. The neighborhood properties were assessed as residences along a collector road. However, they only received a 50% assessment to account for the fact that neighborhood street was paved. Assessed residents requested the City to pay the entire cost of the program out of the general fund. It was noted that the City did not assess for seal coating and crack repair and patching of bituminous neighborhood and collector streets. It was stated by the City that the savings in gravel expenses, if realized, could be applied to future road stabilization programs, therefore, reducing the amount assessed to benefitting properties. Subsequent assessment programs (2002 to present) The road stabilization program has been successful in the following: • The road surface and rideability has improved. • Gravel loss has been reduced over the years. The gravel saved (i.e., tons /yr) has not been quantified. • Gravel road maintenance time has been reduced. The time saved has not been quantified. • Full neighborhoods and collector roads are treated and assessments throughout neighborhoods has been equitable. • Public Works and the contractor have adjusted application rates from time to time to assure proper application and limitation of costs. The City continues to participate in the cost to treat Low Density Collector Roads. The participation amount has remained around $20K. Increases in program costs have resulted in increased assessment amounts. • Neighborhoods and High Density Collector Road residences have continued to pay 100% of their road treatment costs. • The Council and residents have discussed the potential impacts of chloride treatments. This was discussed in most earnest in the early to mid 2000s. No changes were made to the program other than continually seeking to minimize application rates. No negative environmental impacts have been identified. • Certain roads have been added to the program based on requests from neighborhoods. • Certain roads have been deleted from the program as they are upgraded to bituminous pavement. No roads have been deleted only to revert to untreated gravel. • The City has bid road stabilization services periodically. Typically the bid is for a multi -year contract. The City has received favorable bids given the quantity /size of the project. • The City has realized savings in gravel and maintenance. These costs have not been quantified as stated previously. The gravel budget has been generally maintained such that additional gravel can be applied. This has allowed the average gravel depth on all gravel roads to increase since the start of the road stabilization program. • There are still some gravel roads (neighborhood and collector) which are not part of the road stabilization program. • The City has routinely conducted an assessment hearing in the spring of the year prior to the application of the treatments. Current Status We have produced a map which graphically depicts the current program status. The map shows: • The current gravel roads in the program. The roads are categorized by: • Neighborhood Roads • Low Density Collector Roads • High Density Collector Roads All parcels that are currently assessed. • Vacant parcels along treated roads. These parcels appear that they should be assessed, but do not have a residence. Only parcels with residences are assessed. Vacant parcels and farmland are not assessed. • Parcels that should be reviewed further for potential assessment. During this current review, these parcels along treated roads were identified as potential benefitting and thus assessable parcels. They have not been assessed in previous years, but due to oversight or changes (development), assessments could be considered. • Parcels that should be reviewed further for removal from the program. These parcels have been assessed and are currently assessed, but due to road pavement the assessment may need to be eliminated or modified. • Paved roads are also shown on the map for references. • Gravel roads not included in the road stabilization program are also shown. Recommendations It is recommended Council review this information and create a list of further information needed. The assessment hearing initiated this spring was continued and will be completed this fall after the work is completed. Council questions and direction will influence the hearing this fall. The Council could consider several options ranging from continuing the program as currently structured to paying for all program costs from City funds. Regardless of the fund source, the road stabilization applications are beneficial as the road condition is improved, gravel is retained, and maintenance time is reduced. End of Memo